Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds

Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’

Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky

He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”

He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press

Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the ‎hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:

Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]

wherein he quoted

Dr Burzynski:

“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”

======================================Gorski:

“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”

“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”

“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”

“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”

“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”

“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer”======================================

======================================Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible

That he could not do a search on the words:

antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski

and find anything whatsoever======================================

======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page:======================================

======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it======================================

Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons======================================

======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12]======================================

======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
——————————————————————“Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012

“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013

“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?

Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?

(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)

You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons

Where was your head ?

Was your head in Mississippi?

Was your head like a hole ?

Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?

This is a guywho has been funded by:

a) the Department of Defense(DOD)

b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)

c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO

and

d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?

This guy is proclaimed as:

“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”

A “highly-respected blog”?

really ?

Really ??

REALLY ???

You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!

“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”

You mean that “Orac”Hack ?

“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”

Research ?

Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?

And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]

He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”

Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one

“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler

“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”

Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities

I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?

During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:

Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan

In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make

1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2

I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000

Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods

And that’s not all

African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014

And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014

And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013

An increase of 2,010

And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th

And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013

And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th

And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013

However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most

But don’t worry honey

If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)

If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is

The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc

In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People

Remain calm

Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to

None of them were worth being put on a pedestal

None of them were greater than you or I

Gorski is NOT the greater good

Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan

I do not have a “B.S.” degree

I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”

Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation

So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”

But look on the bright side:

“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”

Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances”======================================“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”======================================http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================

======================================Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
——————————————————————P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14]======================================

David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer

That’s right !

Dr. Gorski hates #cancer

He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer

Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer

He is an academicsurgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery(Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michiganspecializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team(MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center(2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer(ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director(clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director(Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery(Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee

Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry

1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research

He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor

SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers

These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear

Who would doubt that Gorski would be a gluttonfor punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues?

Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)

No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women

• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective

• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups

• African Americanshave highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers

• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women

• African American womenhave higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites

• African Americanscontinue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites

• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common inAfrican American than white women
——————————————————————Gorskiworked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs

Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski

Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg

Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dickytrickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine(“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:

“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”

What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
——————————————————————(.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”

he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“

(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
——————————————————————(.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:

“confused, at best”
——————————————————————(.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:

There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attemptedGorskijoke: “happiness is a warm gun”

I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
——————————————————————(28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
——————————————————————(39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
——————————————————————(44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:

“Again my alma-mater”

“I hang my head in shame”
——————————————————————(44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ(University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck

I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage

Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox

Is Gorski a racist?

That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide

Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite

NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”

Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:

What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————“And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
——————————————————————NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”

no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise

What are you ?

A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courtsrule ?

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————

——————————————————————” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“

“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
——————————————————————GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links======================================AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014)======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
======================================Deaths – United States of America
——————————————————————2013 – almost 1,600 a day2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
——————————————————————Expected to Die – United States
——————————————————————2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
——————————————————————Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012)2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008)2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005)2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
——————————————————————Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014)2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008)2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006)2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
——————————————————————Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
——————————————————————6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006)======================================New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
——————————————————————2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
——————————————————————Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006)2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004)2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
——————————————————————Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011)2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006)2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004)2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010)2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
——————————————————————64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008)67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004)59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
——————————————————————Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
——————————————————————2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)

1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
——————————————————————BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women

2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death

2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women

African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women

racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
——————————————————————MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
——————————————————————DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
——————————————————————MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)

50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis

African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————2005

White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40

African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40

African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
•Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)

77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006

[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British!

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
——————————————————————Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”(“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

BigDisappointingFascistLoser ?
——————————————————————“Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————Jiminy Cricket!

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”

“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
——————————————————————Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

Don’t they have the intelligence a “Professor of Writing” should have ?

[3]
——————————————————————
3/12/2013 – Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere whine about publication when the Declaration of Helsinki

30. addresses publishing human clinical trial data

does NOT indicate WHEN the data should be published, leaving it open to interpretation as to if it should be done piecemeal, or when all trials re a specific drug or drugs are completed after Phase I, II, or III, for example ?

[3]
——————————————————————
Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere rant about scientific peer-reviewed journals and their “Impact Factors” but did NOT know what to do about this ?:

National Cancer Institute
at the National Institutes of Health

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. “The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

[4]
——————————————————————
Blaskiewicz, do you have this many honors / awards ?

20 – HONORS AND AWARDS

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. March 2012. Dallas /Ft. Worth, TX

The Order of Merit of the President of Poland – Officer’s Cross, October, 2004

Decoration of Polish Medical Association, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Brigida – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Stanislas – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2000

The Order of Reconciliation – Noember, 2000

The Cross Virtus Nobilitat, June, 1999

The Wisdom Award of Honor, December, 1998

The Medal of the President of City of Lublin, Poland, December, 1998

The Order of Saint Stanislas- Commander’s Cross with Star, December, 1997

The Lady Liberty Award “for engaging in invigorating the Right to be Secure in their Effects by fourteen years of perseverance in practicing his Profession free of interference by a government having no probable cause and in the determined resistance to that interference,” Libertarian Party of Texas, Dallas, TX, July, 1997

The Gold Medal from the American Institute of Polish Culture for outstanding achievements in the field of medicine and discovery of anti-cancer drugs antineoplastons, Miami, FL, February, 1997

Recipient of commendation for Dedicated Service and for Personal Contribution made in the
Advancement of Medical Education, Research and Health Care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, April, 1977

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to surgery,
radiation therapy, and
chemotherapy
for treatment of individuals with
primary or recurrent malignant glioma

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

On this week’s episode of the Virtual Skeptics, I replied to what was learned at the premiere of the new Burzynski movie

The text of my segment follows the episode

This week, the new Burzynski movie premiered in San Luis Obispo, California

We largely knew what was going to be in the movie since a couple of trailers had been released, the patients who appeared had talked about the filming, and there was a sort of credulous review had appeared a few days ahead of time and I believe the director may have mentioned it on a PBS fundraising specual a few days earlier

So we had a pretty good idea of what our proxies should be looking for

We really wanted to see if certain people who had been filmed, like Amelia Saunders or Hannah Bradley appeared and especially what was said about them

We wanted lists of people who appeared, to see if we might be able to put together who said what

Most of these people’s stories are well known, and we doubted there would be anything new

Also our people took down key quotes that struck them as important, like

That the director did not mention this fact seems to me inexcusable, making us look like we are big meanos who hate babies and morality

(He could have mentioned your “Fave,” PZ Myers)

[7]
——————————————————————
This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

P Z who ?

[7]
——————————————————————
If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

I don’t think you really wanted P Z’s “present” “clarified”

[7]
——————————————————————
No messiah should need such fudging

It suggests to me that he’s forcing evidence into a pre-existing narrative of persecution

You are so busy tweeting about penises that you do NOT have enough time to “Fact-Check” ?

[7]
——————————————————————You do know FDA required ?

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as
chemotherapy,
gene targeted therapy,
immunotherapy and
hormonal therapy
in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s
Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALShttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

[8]
——————————————————————
“That said, however, I do disagree with some of his conclusions”

(You could see that coming a mile away, couldn’t you?)

Getler starts off:

[ ” … It is about the decades-long struggle of a Polish-born physician and biochemist, Stanislaw Burzynski, who set up a clinic in Texas in 1976, to achieve acceptance for a cancer-cure therapy based on a treatment he developed based on what he calls “Antineoplastons.” [ANP]”

“I submit this is already wrong
There is little evidence that Burzynski is at all serious about developing antineoplastons for wider marketing”

THAT certainly explains the Phase III stuff

[8]
——————————————————————
“If that were true, surely he would have managed to have completed and published a single advanced trial in 35 years

Bob, who was ultimately in charge of the trials?

The FDA ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“If you look at the trials he’s been required to register at clinicaltrials.gov, you see over 60 trials, 1 completed, and none published

NONE”

Bobby, where is the
Citation(s),
Reference(s), and / or
Link(s)

that support your
“required to register”
statement ?

NONE ?

Are you a sociopath who thinks that people should believe you just because you blogged or twitted it ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“This is important because he is restricted to giving his ANP in clinical trials

But he apparently abandons his trials, almost all of them

This is not normal”

Bobby, how many is
“almost all of them” ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“He charges patients out the nose to participate in the clinical trials

This is not normal”

Does it cost as much as any of THESE ?

Cost cancer: The hospital wanted a $30,000 deposithttp://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS2008 – Cost cancer insurance: Avastin, made by Genentech, is a wonder drug. Approved for patients with advanced lung, colon or breast cancer, it cuts off tumors’ blood supply, an idea that has tantalized science for decades. And despite its price, which can reach $100,000 a year, Avastin has become one of the most popular cancer drugs in the world, with sales last year of about $3.5 billion, $2.3 billion of that in the United States. Avastin costs $50,000 a year and adds four months of life. “There is a shocking disparity between value and price,” he said, “and it’s not sustainable.”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0Cost cancer chemo up-front: $45,000 to Come Inhttp://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle3/2012 – Total Cost of Cancer Care by Site of Service: Physician Office vs Outpatient Hospital (22 pages)http://www.avalerehealth.net/news/2012-04-03_COA/Cost_of_Care.pdfCHEMOTHERAPY:
9/24/2012 – The newspapers found hospitals are routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs by two to 10 times over cost. Some markups are far higher. • Levine Cancer Institute, owned by Charlotte-based Carolinas HealthCare, this year collected nearly $4,500 for a 240-milligram dose of irinotecan, a drug used to treat people with colon or rectal cancer. The average sales price for that amount of the drug: less than $60.
• Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast in Concord was paid about $19,000 for a one-gram dose of rituximab, used to treat lymphoma and leukemia. That was roughly three times the average sales price.
• Forsyth Medical Center in Winston-Salem, owned by Novant Health, collected about $680 for 50 milligrams of cisplatin. The markup: more than 50 times the average sales price. Treating a cancer patient with Avastin, for instance, costs about $90,000 a year, doctors sayhttp://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications, on the other hand, are generally considered a pharmacy benefit. Instead of a co-payment, plan members often pay a percentage of the drugs’ cost — up to 50 percent, in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit. And these drugs are expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patientsRADIATION:
1/4/2013 – The new study was the most comprehensive cost analysis ever, and it compared the costs and outcomes associated with the various types of treatment for all forms of the disease, which ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, to $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease.http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, the researchers looked at 26,163 women with localized breast cancer who had undergone surgery and radiation from 2001 to 2005. They found that Medicare billing for IMRT increased from 0.9% of patients diagnosed in 2001 to 11.2% of women whose breast cancer was diagnosed in 2005.
The average cost for radiation treatment during the first year was $7,179 for non-IMRT and $15,230 with IMRT. Moreover, billing for IMRT was more than five times higher in regions across the nation where the local Medicare coverage determinations were favorable to IMRT compared to regions where coverage was unfavorable. sorafenib (Nexavar) in kidney cancer as an example. “NICE evaluated sorafenib as it was indicated for kidney cancer and determined that it indeed had value, but not $80,000 per year’s worth. The agency said that it would reimburse one-third of the total cost, and if the drug company wants to market their product to 60 million British citizens, they will need to be price flexible,”http://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-15-2012/rising-costs-in-radiation-oncology-linked-to-medicare-coverage.aspx

[8]
——————————————————————
“I put the word “documentary” in quotes above because while the actual film does indeed document very well Burzynski’s seemingly endless battle to win acceptance and approval for his treatment against the FDA, National Cancer Institute, patent challenges and big pharmaceutical companies — and includes very powerful filmed interviews with cancer survivors who say his treatment (in Texas, where it was allowed) saved them — it doesn’t have the kind of critical other-side that one is used to in other documentaries

That last part is true
the movie is one-sided”

Bobby, you do know that Eric Merola offered oncologist and self-described researcher, David H. Gorski

the opportunity to appear in
Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II, and he REFUSED, right ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Of course, why this is might be more apparent if Mr. Getler had realized that Merola’s cousin was a patient of Burzynski (she later died, of course) and that Merola raised funds for his cousin’s treatments on his website

Merola is not impartial

He has skin in the game

He has sunk an enormous amount into Burzynski”

Yeah, just like every other documentary film-maker or director of multiple movies re the same subject (Jaws, Terminator, Predator, Alien, etc.)

[8]
——————————————————————
“Mr. Getler mentions that Shari Bernson, the person responsible for the programming and who appeared in fundraising spots, described the movie as “controversial.”

To someone on the outside, it may appear to be controversial

To someone who understands the science and process of publication and who has found endless descriptions of how patients end up making really, really bad choices out of desperation at that clinic, however, there is no controversy”

The “controversy” is “The Skeptics” who do NOT know how to “Fact-Check,” and instead “Insert Foot in Mouth”

[8]
——————————————————————
“The fact remains that after 35+ years, the Clinic has never produced a single reproducible result that would constitute the barest minimum for serious consideration among experts

It just hasn’t”

That certainly explains the antineoplaston studies done in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, China, Taiwan (ROC), and the USA

“The IRB [Institutional Review Board] used an expedited review procedure for research which did not appear in an FDA list of categories eligible for expedited review, and which had not previously been approved by the IRB”

“Specifically, your IRB routinely provided expedited approvals for new subjects to enroll under Single Patient Protocols.”

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are mentioned]”

“The IRB approved the conduct of research, but did not determine that the risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects, and to the importance of the knowledge that might be expected to result”

“Specifically, your IRB gave Expedited Approval for several Single Patient Protocols (SPP) without all the information necessary to determine that the risk to subjects are minimized.”

“[4 examples follow]”

“The IRB did not determine at the time of initial review that a study was in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Specifically, an IRB that reviews and approves research involving children is required to make a finding that the study is in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Your IRB approved research involving children without documentation of the IRBs finding that the clinical investigation satisfied the criteria under Subpart D.””

“[3 examples follow and there is a note that this is a repeat observation that had been found in an Oct 2010 Inspection.]”

“The IRB did not follow its written procedure for conducting its initial review of research”

“Specifically, the IRB is required to follow its written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review”

“Your IRB did not follow your written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review because these subjects received IRB approval via an expedited review procedure not described in your Standard Operating Procedures”

“If your IRB would have followed your own SOP for initial and continuing review, the following subjects would have received review and approval from the full board rather than an expedited review.””

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are listed.]”

“The IRB has no written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others”

“Specifically, your current SOP-2012 v2-draft doc does not describe the requirements on Investigators on how unanticipated problems are reported to the IRB, Institutional Official, and the FDA, such as time intervals and the mode of reporting, or otherwise address how the prompt reporting of such instances will be ensured.”

“The IRB has no written procedures [in the SOP-2012 v2-draft doc] for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with theses [sic] regulations or the requirements or determinations of the IRB.”

“A list of IRB members has not been prepared and maintained, identifying members by name, earned degrees, representative capacity, and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution.”

[8]
——————————————————————
“I’m not sure that this round of investigation is over yet, as the audience at the premier of the sequel was apparently told that the FDA was still on site”

“Researchers should not be playing fast and loose with the rules that protect children (a protected subject population, like prisoners and students–yeah, I’m IRB certified)”

“There should be procedures in place to see that proper oversight and reporting of unexpected events is ensured”

“Hell, there was apparently no document even saying WHO was on the IRB!”

“This is not a report on a serious research institution”

“It’s more like the observations of the IRB of a clown school”

How many more businesses with more IRB issues than Burzynski did you find during you intense “Fact-Finding” mission ?

Bob, did you read Burzynski’s publications with their notes about the IRB ?

“Back to Mr Getler’s letter:”

“On the other hand, Bernson’s sidekick on the in-studio, pledge-drive promotion who was interviewing the clinic spokesman, made me gag when she said,
“I’m Rebecca Stevens and I’m proud to be a journalist who asks the hard questions.”

There were no hard questions”

[I believe the question that followed up this statement was, “What is peer-review?”–RJB]

“And where Bernson may have gone too far, depending on who you believe, was in her statement that:

“Antineoplaston therapy has had significant success rates with terminal brain cancer patients and especially in children.”

No, she went too far no matter who you believe, and his next paragraph demonstrates this:”

“The National Cancer Institute, reporting last month on Antineoplastons, said, among other things:

“No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
and that they are
“not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.”

Aaaand…how’s that controversial?

In light of this, how could Sherri possibly be right?

My bottom line is that CPT12 obviously has a right to show this film

Nobody questions that

“What we wanted, and what was offered to the station, was the opportunity to have an independent oncologist in the studio at the time of the broadcast, you know, to stir up the kind of informed discussion the station says they want to have instead of settling for two True Believers talking to two CPT12 pitch people”

“When the station had that opportunity, they walked away from it”

“That’s indefensible”

Bob, like your man-crush oncologist who refuses to debate ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Especially when you consider that the people we are worried about, patients and their families, may NOT be as discerning as your average viewer, as CPT President Willard Rowland suggests in his response to the ombudsman:

“The program’s airing is grounded in the station’s mission, specifically those portions about respecting our viewers as inquisitive and discerning citizens, addressing social issues and public concerns not otherwise adequately covered in the community, and cultivating an environment of discovery and learning.”

Some of them haven’t had good news since their diagnosis”

“Then they hear that some lone genius with the cure for cancer is operating in Houston and they are on the next flight down”

“I’ve seen it dozens of times, and I have hundreds more patients on deck to write about”

“These are vulnerable, vulnerable people who deserve the best information from their public broadcasters”

“I’m fairly disappointed by the tepid response, honestly”

“I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Getler, or Mr Willard Rowland for that matter, could possibly think that this program was anything but misleading if they spent a half hour at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which chronicles, in patients’ own words, what goes on in that Clinic”

“All of the people told that getting worse is getting better”

“(for decades being fed the same line!),

the children having strokes

(unrelated to their tumors)

while on the medicine, the “terrifying” amounts of sodium that go into patients”

3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process

So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process

So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that

Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient

“There are two cases of children (Haley S. and Elizabeth K.) at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group who have had strokes unrelated to their tumors, likely because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “STROKE” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

[9]
——————————————————————
“This physician and others declined to be interviewed for the movie because of Merola’s track record of slanted presentation and because of past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”

“Past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

[9]
——————————————————————
“What was the “present” from skeptics that was alluded to in the movie?”

“The “present” the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients (SPCP) delivered to Burzynski on his birthday, was a donation of $14,500 to St Jude Children’s Hospital for research into childhood cancers”

“They challenged Dr. Burzynski to match their donation”

“He did not”

“In fact, some of the interviews in the movie (conducted after the FDA inspection of the Burzynski Clinic, mentioned at the end) were filmed after the fundraiser had been announced, so Merola seems to have deliberately omitted the whole truth, because he certainly was aware of it”

“Merola does not mention that skeptics only caught wind of the Burzynski story in November 2011, after a teenaged blogger critical of the Clinic received phony legal threats from someone who had been hired by the Clinic to “clean up” its reputation”

“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

“We know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the loquacious “teenaged” high school student got his “FACTS” straight:

“Merola suggests that Amelia Saunders died as a result of her parents taking her off of antineoplaston therapy, that there “confusion and disagreement” between the doctors in the UK and Houston’s reading”

[10]
——————————————————————“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″

[11]
——————————————————————9-10/2009 – Stable disease is a valid end point in clinical trialshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826356/
strong>10,675 – # of times “stable disease” found on PubMed[12]
——————————————————————costs (see above)

Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:

1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
3. We will accept … less information … up front –

4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured

5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works

6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons

7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
—————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?

B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?

C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?

D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of psrtial response”?

E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?

F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?

G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?

[20]
——————————————————————?
Oncologist

Survival rate 776 15%

2 1/2 million pages

Phase 3 radiation

Lancet

1652 / 335 = 1,799

Accelerated approval

Bob, at least we talked about some of these

[21]
——————————————————————IRB – FDA

Burzynski’s publications sometimes mentioned IRB was agreed on per FDA

[25]
——————————————————————
25. 6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================ANONYMOUS:“I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================ANONYMOUS:“In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================ANONYMOUS:“You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACShttp://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================ANONYMOUS:“Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856
——————————————————————
On Monday, September 23, 2013, Robert Blaskiewicz wrote:You going to be a rotten little troll or do you want to debate?
——————————————————————You’re the one who posted this on Twitter

Do NOT try to make me the COWARD

Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013
——————————————————————2/13/2013 (7/2013)
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center

Title: Glioblastoma multiforme: a report of long-term progression-free survival and overall survival of 8 to 16 years after antineoplaston therapy and review of literature

Dear Dr. Burzynski,

Thank you for your recent submission to The Lancet Oncology. We have now had time to consider your manuscript and unfortunately, on this occasion, we have decided not to publish it because we believe the message would be better elsewhere.

Although the decision has not been a positive one, I thank you for your interest in the journal and hope it does not deter from considering us again in the future

At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survivalhttp://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 1/1999 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764862/Phenylbutyrate is a aromatic fatty acid, able to induce hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 and growth arrest, differentiation and apoptosis of AML cell lines and primary leukemic cells. It has been effectively used to induce fetal erythropoiesis in patients with sickle cell anemia and β-thalassemia [105]. The aromatic ring does not contribute to the antitumor activity, as butyric acid is of equal or greater potency at producing these biological changes, while shortening of the fatty acid carbon chain length, as demonstrated with phenylacetate, significantly diminished drug potency [106]. After administration phenylbutyrate is metabolized to phenylacetate, then to phenylacetylglutamine and eliminated by urine [107]. The maximum tolerated doses, when administered as a 7-day continuous infusion, was 375 mg/kg/day, while higher doses were associated with encephalopathy apparently attributable to accumulation of the metabolite phenylacetate. At the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), median steady state concentration of phenylbutyrate is 0.3 mM, which is less than the ED50 of 1-2 mM required for differentiation and cytostasis in vitro but in within the concentration range in which phenylbutyrate
induces acetylation of histones. Dose-limiting toxicities were mainly represented by neurocortical toxicity, including lethargy, confusion, and slurred speech, which completely disappeared within 24 to 48 h upon cessation of the infusion. Non dose-limiting toxicities were hyperammoniemia, hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, skin abnormalities and interstitial pneumonia [108, 109].
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski;https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/